Engaging With Liminalities and Combating
Toxicity: A Compassionate Approach to Developing Professional Identities for
Phd Students Who Teach

Jessica Clare Hancock, City, University of
London

Introduction

Waddington (2016)
argues for the necessity of compassion in Higher Education (HE) to counter
toxic environments, particularly in the context of academic practice
development. This harmful side of HE is particularly evident in the case of PhD
students who teach: in the precarity of their employment status (Zheng, 2018)
and related feelings of being overworked and underprepared; in the requirements
to present an authoritative teaching identity against a backdrop of their
imposter syndrome (Knights & Clarke, 2013) and lack of autonomy around how
or what they teach; and in concerns about their own future status and careers
(Adsit, 2015). This paper offers a case study of a new course, ‘Establishing a
Teaching Persona’, at City, University of London (City). This training
encourages doctoral candidates who teach to develop compassion, for both
themselves and their students, throughout their process of becoming a HE
educator (Callary et al, 2012). The course aims to achieve this through an
explicit focus on compassion, involving collaboration with a counselling
professional, and discussions of compassion and emotion (Edwards &
Ashkanasy, 2018) in relation to teaching and academic identities. Whilst a
compassionate approach to students is likely to promote an atmosphere that is
beneficial for learning, it is the practice of self-compassion that will enable
PhD students to thrive despite the potential toxicity of their teaching
situation. This paper thus aims to explore the need for an academic development
approach focused on compassion and identity, the potential of such a course to
develop compassion, and to reflect on the experience of teaching its first
iteration.

PhD students and
teaching

Afonso (2014) has
argued that academia is like a drug gang – involving an “expanding mass of
outsiders and a shrinking core of insiders” (p. 1). This would position PhD
students as the corner pushers; as their numbers increase (HESA, 2018), eking
out a meagre existence on unreliable wages (Acker & Haque, 2015), their
chances of moving up into a secure academic position diminish. I am conscious
of the reminder by Cuthbert and Molla (2015) that “the over-supply argument
draws on largely unexamined assumptions about where PhDs are best employed” (p.
37); nevertheless, many graduate students are keen to seek academic employment.
The stress caused by this and other aspects of graduate study has been attested
for some time (Rocha-Singh, 1994; Stubb, Pyhältö, & Lonka, 2011; Grady, La
Touche, Oslawski-Lopez, Powers, & Simacek, 2014). Current PhD students experience
the intellectual challenges of academic study at the highest level (Mowbray
& Halse, 2010; Carter, Kensington-Miller, & Courtney, 2016) and writing
an extended thesis demonstrating originality (Brodin, 2018) and expertise
(Casanave, 2018); in addition, they are advised to develop abilities to make
them stand out at application or interview stage in their potential academic
careers (Duke & Denicolo, 2017) – such as organising conferences, outreach
activities and teaching. Teaching experience is recommended to bring doctoral
candidates closer to a lectureship, but it is also important either as an extra
source of income, or a studentship requirement. Thus, teaching is frequently a
central part of the PhD experience (Burge, Godinho, Knottenbelt, & Loads,
2017), with a UCU (2018) report stating the high numbers of PhD students
employed on an hourly basis, especially in research-intensive pre-1992
institutions. Without adequate support, teaching can become a further strain for
doctoral candidates, especially if they feel pressure to excel in order to
secure future academic employment in a competitive environment.

Training PhD
students to teach

In recognition of the potential for
teaching to add to an already stressful situation, many UK universities offer
training for PhD students (Fisher & Taithe, 1998; Chadha, 2013; Truuvert,
2014), with some requiring the completion of a particular course or
qualification. The institution in this case study is no exception. The first
module from City’s MA in Academic Practice (MAAP), entitled ‘Learning, Teaching
and Assessment’ (LTA) is a mandatory requirement for PhD students in the term
they start teaching, unless they gain exemption through a prior qualification.
LTA also enables students to gain Associate Fellowship of the HEA. As the
educational development team’s experiences indicated that the needs of PhD
students were different from those of other teaching staff, a new lecturer role
was established, with specific responsibilities for supporting the teaching of PhD
students across City. I began in this role in January 2018 and commenced a
fact-finding mission. This involved informal interviews with 24 PhD students
and academic staff, representing each of City’s five schools.

The desire for practical material was
repeated by all PhD students. The topics requested included behaviour
management; encouraging attendance and engagement, especially if their sessions
were seen as optional by students; interpersonal skills; and building
resilience to deal with the emotional impact of teaching. They perceived that it
was not appropriate to ask about these issues within LTA and so still lacked
confidence about teaching after the course. Most of the doctoral candidates
felt very anxious about teaching and wanted training well before they started.
However, because HEA accreditation requires evidence of teaching practice, LTA
participants are now asked to attend only in a term where they already have
teaching arranged; this also means that they can put ideas from the course into
practice. Imposter syndrome (Bothello & Roulet, 2018) was a concern of many
doctoral candidates, which was increased due to the liminality of their status
between student and staff, and for most, due to their youth. PhD students felt
they lacked the authority to manage a classroom and were unsure about how to
position themselves or decide on their new professional identity, linking this
to a lack of self-esteem. These concerns about identity also caused anxiety,
with doctoral candidates wanting reassurance that that they did not need to
imitate their supervisor or other colleagues’ teaching styles. This was
exacerbated by a feeling that they needed to perform well at teaching
immediately. Subsequently, they desired a space to share worries and understand
that other people have similar concerns.

Beginning teaching unsurprisingly emerged
as a clear stressor for PhD students, with uncertainties about basic elements
and a lack of confidence to express any doubts or fears to academic staff. Doctoral
candidates also experienced conflicts about their developing professional
identities: in some situations, firmly positioned by the university as a
student, and then in others, expected to perform as a university teacher or
lecturer. The aspects of constructing a professional teaching-identity
articulated during the informal interviews, which focus on emotion and
relationships, relate to compassion. Not only did these students require an
additional exploration of issues related to learning and teaching, but they
also needed to be able to develop compassion both for themselves and for the
students they would be teaching.

Compassion and PhD
students

Compassion is most
commonly defined as involving two key components: observing suffering and
taking action. There have been significant recent efforts to raise the issue of
compassion in education. White (2018) argues that “we may think of compassion
as the heart and soul of education and we should treat others with compassion
and teach them what compassion is” (p. 75): clearly articulating a nascent
compassionate turn in education. In the UK, the marketisation of HE has led to
the prevalence of what Gibbs (2018) describes as the “business metaphor” (44.5)
for universities. A compassionate approach is, therefore, needed to ameliorate
the effects of a system where students of all levels are under a myriad of
pressures (Denovan & Macaskill, 2013). These strains range from financial
(Richardson, Elliott, Roberts, & Jansen, 2017) to the demands of curricula
that still often remain hidden (Killick, 2015; Orón Semper & Blasco, 2018):
despite sterling efforts of many HE staff, significantly including the emerging
profession of Learning Developers (Hartley, 2011). As both students and
teachers/ potential teachers, doctoral candidates are exposed to these student
anxieties, but also those of UK teaching staff: to meet metrics imposed by
university league tables, the National Student Survey (NSS), and the Teaching
Excellence Framework (TEF). These metrics predominantly demand attention to
aspects of teaching that are immediately measurable, rather than those that
might provide a real insight into learning (Spence, 2018). In turn, they place
an emphasis on the quantification of student satisfaction through module
evaluations, despite a growing literature that questions the links between
these and learning (Uttl, White, & Gonzalez, 2017) as these measurements
often do little than confirm students’ existing biases towards maleness as a
marker of a good educator (MacNell, Driscoll, & Hunt, 2015; Wagner, Rieger,
& Voorvelt, 2016).

Embarking on a HE
teaching career thus entails engaging with a toxic atmosphere of judgement from
the outset. Compassion is, therefore, essential to reset notions of competition
amongst teaching PhD students and the potential to view students as consumers.
This can be achieved through the ability of compassion to increase a sense of
community (Frost, 2000). Of course, many doctoral candidates are already some
of the most supportive and committed HE teachers I have come across, often with
a fierce concern for their students’ wellbeing. This dedication, however,
frequently comes at the cost of their own welfare, which is why both aspects of
compassion need to be attended to: for themselves and for their students.
Indeed, Waddington (2018) has demonstrated the benefits of self-compassion for
academics in terms of psychological health, arguing that it also “helps
facilitate the learning process” (211.3). If compassion is viewed as a
professional attribute (Maxwell, 2017), it can be adapted specifically for PhD
students who teach, building on research into professional compassion in both
HE and healthcare settings (Taylor, 2011; Crigger & Godfrey, 2014; Billas,
2017). Whilst not specifically addressing compassion, the Senses Framework for
Postgraduates Who Teach (Burge et al., 2017) examines emotions in the context
of developing professional teaching identities for PhD students, emphasising
the importance of belonging and feeling valued. The teaching course in this
case study explores the links between compassion and professional identity
negotiation. It thus extends the Senses Framework by offering an insight into
the benefits of a more compassion-focused approach for developing the teaching
practice of doctoral candidates; this will have wider implications for academic
practice in HE as an emphasis on compassion is likely to also benefit others.

Creating the new
course

An initial consideration was how to respond
to the PhD students’ need for additional focus on the practical aspects of
teaching as well as identity and compassion. One option was an alteration to existing
compulsory training, the LTA module. This would be slow to implement as it
would involve the university’s internal processes and also a re-accreditation
with the HEA. Additionally, I felt that LTA’s focus on learning, teaching and
assessment in the context of research and reflection was important, and that a
significant adjustment in content would not be beneficial, especially
considering the full range of participants (a range of teaching academic and
professional staff, both internal and external, as well as internal PhD
students). The option to alter LTA to respond to the doctoral candidates’ extra
requirements was, therefore, rejected. Similarly, LTA enables PhD students to interact
with participants with a range of experience and backgrounds in teaching. I believe
that this peer learning is valuable (Boud, 1999), and so it would not be
advantageous to remove the requirement for doctoral candidates who teach to
take this module. Therefore, I decided to offer additional training. This could
have taken the form of an additional module of the MA in Academic Practice (MAAP).
Due to the existing structure and credit organisation of the MA, PGCert and
PGDip, this would need to be at least 15 credits. I recognised that requiring
doctoral candidates to undertake an additional level 7 module with an
associated assessment during their PhD studies would be likely to lead to them
feeling overburdened, exacerbating rather than ameliorating their anxiety.
Instead, the course was established as optional, with no formal assessment, and
of a shorter duration than the taught MAAP modules. The course was designed to
be taught over 1.5 days: one full day of teaching and activities, and a
micro-teaching activity the following morning. As many of the concerns which
emerged from the informal discussions with PhD students centred on issues of
identity as well as compassion, these were used as lenses through which
teaching was examined. The course title also came from one of the students who
participated in these conversations: Establishing a Teaching Persona (ETP). The
course was advertised to all PhD students from June 2018, in two initial
iterations, in September 2018 and January 2019, indicating that it was
specifically aimed at people with limited or no teaching experience but that
PhD students at any stage were welcome. Numbers were capped at 33 for each
iteration, with a waiting list begun when the September version became fully
subscribed. Final numbers for September were 21, as some students cancelled
just beforehand or did not attend on the day.

The course was structured around different
aspects of developing a professional identity, as follows:

Day one (full day)

The teacher as part of HE in the UK (lecture and discussion about
contexts and introducing ideas about compassion for students)

The teacher as planner (lecture-based, about structuring sessions,
and building on a compassionate approach to learning)

The teacher as gatekeeper (lecture and discussion about hidden
curricula, academic literacies, cultural competencies and university support
services)

The teacher as a constructed professional identity (Lego activity,
introducing concepts of self-compassion and dealing with a potentially toxic
environment)

The teacher as one of many identities (discussion about managing
multiple identities)

The teacher as compassionate (section taught by counsellor, about the
neuroscience of compassion, self-compassion and including a short mindfulness
meditation)

The teacher as relationship builder (discussions about managing
discussions in a compassionate way)

The teacher as a specialist (world-café style opportunity to explore
specific kinds of teaching)

The teacher as learner (Q&A with PhD students and recent PhD
graduate with substantial teaching experience)

The teacher as presenter (lecture and discussion about presentation
skills and exploration of the micro-teach for day two)

The teacher as reflector (lecture-based, about the importance of
reflection and communities of practice)

Day two (half day)

The teacher as performer (teaching a short session to peers and an
educational developer; receiving and giving peer feedback)

Compassion and Establishing
a Teaching Persona (ETP)

As compassion entails attention to
suffering, and the desire to alleviate this, one aim of the course was to
provide a space for ETP participants to reveal and discuss their concerns
around teaching and the formation of this new professional identity. ETP included
an activity which asked participants to reflect on their identities as
teachers, and how this aspect of the self might be developed. This task
encouraged them to move away from a conception of identity as static and
unchanging that White (2018) argues is in opposition to a truly compassionate
approach, which entails a “a reorganisation of our whole being” (98.6-101.2). The
activity utilised a playful approach, involving Lego, as this has been
associated with creativity and self-expression in the context of identity
formation (Hayes, 2016; Peabody & Noyes, 2017; Tseng, 2017). Participants
were first asked to make a model representing the kind of teacher they would
like to be. They then combined their models with another person’s, and finally
created a composite model with the other people on their tables.[1] During this process they discussed their ideas and decisions and
also considered the barriers which might prevent them from becoming this kind
of teacher, and how these might be overcome.

The model building enabled participants to
think about teaching and their persona in a different way. An act of creation
also drew their attention to identity as a continuous process of becoming,
allowing them to become more comfortable with liminality. Furthermore, emphasising
the possibilities for playfulness and autonomy empowered them to move away from
potentially toxic concepts of identity, imposed upon them by HE structures or the
perceived expectations of others. The initial focus on their own model provided
time for individual reflection, and combining models fostered a collaborative
and communal concept of identity. This was intended to encourage them to relate
to each other and themselves with compassion – acknowledging the suffering
resulting from their fears about teaching and meeting internal or external standards.
Discussing the components of a model permitted them to articulate emotions at a
remove, meaning that this was less traumatic, and allowed participants to open
up to each other. Asking the participants to find solutions to potential
barriers meant that problems or feelings were not just shared without a
resolution. This aspect was crucial given the upsetting potential of these
discussions, and the need to attend to the second aspect of compassion: taking
action to negate suffering. Additionally, at the end of the activity, a whole
group discussion was used to explore further some of the issues, such as
liminality and the pressures of contemporary HE, to enable more experience
sharing and bonding, and additional resolution of difficulties raised.

Participants’ potential suffering around
teaching was also attended to during some more lecture-based components of the
session, which covered practical ideas and information. This was intended to
provide reassurance for participants so that, whatever their own experience,
they understood some essential background about HE in the UK, and City itself.
Additionally, a world-café style activity (which involved other academic and
professional colleagues) enabled participants to discuss particular types of
teaching in more detail, such as labs or seminars, or have a basic introduction
to educational technology. This ensured that the material could be tailored,
and provided participants with another opportunity to discuss specific
concerns. The lecture-style sections also introduced participants to thinking
about the potential suffering of the students they might teach. Issues such as
hidden curricula and inclusivity were raised, alongside advice about how these
might be addressed to contribute to their own ability to reduce the potential
harms of HE.

An activity which used a variety of
discussion styles (online, whole class, pairs, small and large groups) was also
used to explore particular concerns raised by the PhD students in the initial
informal interviews (such as engaging students and managing behaviour), and participants
were encouraged to find solutions that benefitted both them and the students. Concerns
about the liminality of participants’ status again emerged through questions about
how to ensure that they were listened to and taken seriously as an instructor.
These were explored through an examination of the advantages and disadvantages
of different approaches to student behaviour, and a discussion of the benefits
of establishing clear boundaries at the outset. The participants were also
prompted to reflect on the effect of the different kinds of discussions on
themselves as participants. Gilbert (2018) has demonstrated how an attention to
micro-ethnography of the eye gaze in group work can provide a more
compassionate experience for participants and have a positive impact on social
belonging and critical thinking. These issues, and how certain kinds of
discussion format might act to silence some students or create social anxiety
were specifically signposted. Zembylas (2018) argues that for compassion to be
functional, it must focus on a common vulnerability rather than a
sentimentality. Accordingly, some of the participants’ assumptions about the
students they did or might teach were challenged through these discussions: not
to provoke pity, but to enable a critical dimension to the compassion that was
stimulated in order to emphasise the need to provide a supportive but demanding
environment.

Compassion was most directly addressed
through a section taught by a colleague from City’s Counselling and Mental
Health Service (CMHS). This element focused on the neuroscience of compassion,
and self-compassion. Brescini Ludvik (2018) maintains the importance of
mindfulness in compassion, and this was directly addressed in a short
meditation section. Although a brief outline of something as complex as
mindfulness is unlikely to engender significant change in itself, it was hoped
that introducing participants to this idea would encourage them to explore it
further outside of the session. Having one of the university counsellors teach this
section was intended to make a connection between the participants and this
service to offer a route to enable this. Indeed, several participants directly
mentioned ETP as a motivation to contact CMHS afterwards.

In the afternoon, a Q&A session was
arranged with two current (and one recently graduated) PhD students. They were
involved as they had direct, recent experience of the kinds of teaching that
PhD students are likely to undertake at City, and it was anticipated that ETP
participants may relate more easily to others in a similar position. An online
noticeboard, Padlet, was set up as a space for participants to enter questions anonymously,
as well as Post-it notes being provided on the day for this purpose. Neither of
these options was taken up, however, despite Padlet being used for an earlier
activity to ensure familiarity; it is difficult to know whether this was
because participants were unsure of the remit of the Q&A or that they felt
comfortable asking their questions face to face. Questions initially focused on
classroom management, but also began to address wider concerns related to the
toxicity of HE, such as contractual disputes. Issues of liminality were also
addressed, with the panel suggesting that creating a clear divide between
themselves as students/ researchers and teachers, through the timing of tasks,
was beneficial. One of the Q&A panel was also a union representative, and
was able to provide a perspective on the potential for collective action to
resist harmful structures in HE. A question about how responsive one should be
to student emails entailed a reiteration of the importance of self-compassion.
It was noted that a balance between self-compassion and compassion for others was
difficult, but could be achieved through managing student expectations from the
outset. Although White (2018) contends that compassionate teaching entails “answer[ing]
every student’s email as soon as you get it” (111.8), I feel that this places
too much of a burden on any kind of HE educator. Self-compassion entails a
recognition that regular opportunities to distance ourselves from work are
essential.

In the final part of the course,
participants each delivered a micro-teach session. For timing reasons, the
groups were split into two rooms to present concurrently. Participants had 5-7
minutes for the micro-teach, and then received feedback from their peers and an
educational developer. The feedback was given verbally, and also each person
summarised their comments on two Post-it notes: a green one noting the positive
aspects, and a yellow one giving suggestions for development. Having written
feedback meant that participants could more easily reflect on it after the
session, in a less stressful environment. In the briefing at the end of the
first day, participants explored compassionate feedback to enable the
micro-teach to provide the ‘learning in a supportive space’ (662.5) advocated
by Boddington (2018). It was also anticipated that the previous day, involving
group activities, would have initiated a sense of community which would also
make the process less anxiety-inducing.

Reflection

As this was a new
course, I did not want to exclude any PhD students from it, so attendees came
with a range of knowledge about and experience of teaching. This was
beneficial, as it enabled exploration of real incidents. Yet I was concerned during
some of my observations of small group discussions that the participants with
more experience were treated as if their ideas and opinions were more valuable.
For future iterations of the course, as more practiced PhD students will have
already participated, new cohorts are more likely to all be new to teaching, so
it will be productive to examine how this affects the dynamic. As participants
came from different backgrounds and disciplines, I was particularly
apprehensive about the Lego and mindfulness activities, and whether these would
be seen as relevant and valuable learning opportunities. Participants were
indeed a little hesitant in making a start with the Lego activity, but soon
became fully engaged and each student was able to form a model to represent their
professional teaching identity. Indeed, many participants continued to play
with the Lego during some of the later lecture-based sections and discussions,
with one participant commenting afterwards that she found it beneficial to have
as a kinaesthetic tool to aid concentration. When observing this task, it was
clear that the creativity involved enabled them to develop a more empowered
approach to their own liminality; they became positive about the process of
becoming involved in a new professional identity, and their ability to shape
this. The dialogues that emerged from the model-combining activities and the
whole group discussion at the end demonstrated that this had also been a
beneficial way of provoking consideration of self-compassion. Sharing concerns
about outside pressures on their identity construction facilitated a sense of
community and the ability to rationalise expectations or perceived obligations.

In creating this
course, a compassionate approach to the participants was essential, as I was
raising some potentially troublesome issues which may have increased rather
than reduced negative emotions. Indeed, some participants had a mixed response
to the mindfulness activity, with a couple stating that it brought up
troublesome feelings. These were ameliorated through the counsellor’s debrief
to this section. I was also conscious of establishing a safe space for sharing throughout
ETP, through the use of ground rules, and signposting to relevant further
support. Nevertheless, in the next iteration, the meditation will be altered to
avoid triggering negative emotions. Additionally, the element taught by the
counsellor could be connected more explicitly to the rest of the discussions;
this could be achieved by a team-teaching approach, as the counsellor was only
present for her section so was less able to easily establish links.
Constructing a professional identity which involves compassion is a complex
topic, and throughout the day there were moments where I felt that issues were
not being fully explored. For subsequent iterations, I will either reduce the
amount of material or expand the course to two full days. There was an issue
with participants cancelling their attendance shortly before the course or not
turning up; only two thirds of the booked attendees arrived on the first day.
Although participants were presented with a certificate at the end, it is
possible that perceptions of the course’s informality meant that they were less
likely to treat it seriously. It may be beneficial to look into the
possibilities for the course to become credit bearing in the future.

Nevertheless,
participants of ETP provided a large amount of spontaneous positive feedback
about their experiences, verbally and via email. This included praise for “a
really useful and enjoyable course” (email correspondence) and another
participant who stated: “congratulations for your amazing course. I truly
learned a lot these two days” (email correspondence). Many commented at the end
that they would recommend the course to their PhD colleagues. Qualitative
feedback from a short questionnaire distributed at the end of the session was
also positive, with participants specifically praising:

the focus on compassion;

“getting to discuss my anxieties”;

“student mental health/ emotional considerations”;

information about engaging students and establishing authority;

the Lego activity;

discussion of practical situations;

interactivity and “the various kinds of activities”;

“the multiple facilitators”;

the micro-teach;

and the meditation

Suggested improvements included a longer
course, a more discipline-specific focus and inclusion of material on
discrimination. A full evaluation and exploration of the course’s contribution
to the development of participants’ compassion and professional identities will
be carried out through interview research after the second iteration has been
taught.

Lessons learned

The key points to
emerge from this course to support PhD students who teach are as follows:

A creative activity was particularly beneficial to explore a concept
of identity as a continual process of becoming, which is associated with
compassion. Building representations of the potential-self drew attention to
ideas of identity as a construction, and the potential for autonomy in its
creation. An associated reduction in participants’ feelings of obligation to
conform to fixed roles (evident from my observations of the discussions) appeared
to relieve some of the particular pressures of the liminal PhD student/ teacher
identity. Yet as all staff who teach in HE will be negotiating a multiplicity
of identities, this activity is likely to be productive for others.

The collaborative approach enabled the inclusion of different kinds
of expertise and knowledge. Meeting a range of staff, from educational
technology and counselling as well as educational development, and other, more
experienced PhD students, also encouraged a sense of belonging within the wider
university community, attested to by participants making contact with these
areas after the course. The section taught by a counsellor also enabled links
to be developed between the theory and practice of compassion, in participants’
teaching contexts. This potential for collaboration could be usefully exploited
in other academic development contexts; indeed, modules on City’s MAAP often
utilise students and colleagues from other areas.

Participants approached discussions of compassion and identity with
enthusiasm and thoughtfulness, and made substantial contributions. This indicates
that a focus on these issues was seen as valuable by the participants. The
course explored areas which are not otherwise explicitly addressed, thus
providing a space to challenge assumptions, empower participants and offer a
counter to the harmful discourses of HE; again, this is expected to have
similar benefits for other HE teaching staff.

Although the non-mandatory status is likely to have engendered a
positive attitude towards the course, the absence of accreditation possibly led
to participants being less committed to attendance. Further consideration will
be given to striking a balance between compulsion and engagement for future
iterations.

Conclusion

The doctoral candidates who participated in ETP
benefitted from the focus on a compassionate approach to developing a
professional teaching-identity. Introducing the concept of self-compassion, and
identity as a process of continual formation, detracted from anxiety-inducing
feelings of having to immediately transition into a perfect teacher. ETP’s
consideration of the narratives of identity construction, examined through the
lens of compassion, reveals the utility of a compassion-focused approach for developing
the teaching practices of PhD students. Although identity may be particularly
complex for doctoral candidates in a liminal position between student and
staff, I anticipate that an approach which explores compassion alongside
identity formation would be beneficial for other HE teachers. Placing
compassion at the heart of academic development would go some way to answering
Sahin’s (2018) call that “compassion needs to become a central feature of
contemporary HE” (391.6). Of course, further research is needed to explore the
participants’ own experiences and perceptions of the course, and the impact
that it might have on their teaching in HE. Yet an approach which empowers
participants to explore their professional identity development in the context
of compassion can enable a deeper understanding of the issues encountered by
PhD students who teach. It can also illuminate ways in which accounts from
these educators, with their unique insider and outsider perspectives, may be
used to oppose the harmful discourses of HE.

Biographies

Jessica Clare Hancock is a lecturer in
Educational Development at City, University of London, teaching on the MA in
Academic Practice. My role has a specific responsibility for PhD students who
teach. My previous research has focused on academic identities, particularly in
academic writing, and my own doctoral research addressed gender identity.
Contact details: Jessica.hancock@city.ac.uk Twitter @LittleAsALeaf

[1]The
structure of this activity was inspired by a workshop I participated in during
the 2018 conference of the Association for Learning Development in HE (ALDinHE)
run by Rachel Stead, University of Surrey.